9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 1142 - HC - CustomsTime limitation of one year to claim refund of Special Additional Duty - N/N. 93/2008-Customs dated 01.08.2008 - Whether N/N. 102/2007-Customs dated 14.09.2007 and the amending Notification No.93/2008-Customs dated -01.08.2008 issued under sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962, have the standing and statutory backing to prescribe limitation for claiming refund? - HELD THAT - This Court has taken a view in THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE VERSUS M/S. MOLEX INDIA PVT. LTD., 2021 (10) TMI 342 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT agreeing with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS 2014 (4) TMI 870 - DELHI HIGH COURT , where it was held that Indisputably, in N/N.102/2007-Cus dated 14.9.2007, no time period was mentioned for claiming the refund under the said notification. By virtue of the amendment notifications and Circular Nos.6/2008, 10/2012 and 18/2013 issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs, additional restrictions were imposed for availing the exemption. The substantial questions raised are answered against the Revenue and the appeal is dismissed.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of limitation period for claiming refund of Special Additional Duty under Customs Act, 1962. 2. Validity of Notification imposing limitation for claiming refund. Analysis: 1. The appellant questioned the correctness of CESTAT's decision regarding the limitation period for claiming refund of Special Additional Duty. The main issue was whether the limitation of one year to claim refund could be imposed despite being a condition for availing exemption under the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant argued that the limitation period was imposed by the Central Government under section 25 of the Act and should not apply to the right to claim refund of Special Additional Duty. 2. The appellant also challenged the validity of Notification No.102/2007-Customs and its amending Notification No.93/2008-Customs, which prescribed the limitation for claiming refund. The appellant contended that these notifications lacked statutory backing to impose such limitations. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs rejected the refund claim based on the limitation period, while the Appellate Authority and CESTAT provided differing decisions on the matter. 3. The Court referred to a previous decision in Commissioner of Customs Vs. M/s Octel Networks Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that neither Section 27 of the Customs Act nor a Notification under Section 25(1) could be used to impose a limitation on claiming refunds. The Standing Counsel mentioned a pending case before the Supreme Court related to the same issue. The Court also cited Commissioner of Customs Vs. M/s Molex India Pvt. Ltd. and the Delhi High Court's decision in Sony India Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs to support its view. 4. Ultimately, the Court agreed with its previous decisions and held that the substantial questions raised by the appellant were answered against the Revenue. The Court dismissed the appeal, indicating that the limitation period for claiming refund of Special Additional Duty should not be enforced. The judgment concluded without imposing any costs on either party.
|
